Georgia Democrats introduce gun seizure bill
House Bill 731, filed by Georgia democrat Mary Margaret Oliver, is one of the most extreme anti-second amendment bills the state has seen in some time. Co-sponsored by Minority Leader Stacey Abrams and Reps. Carolyn Hugley, Pat Gardine, Dar’shun Kendrick, Dee Dawkins-Haigler, the bill seeks to focus on “dangerous instrumentalities and practices” by prohibiting the “possession, sale, transport, distribution, or use of certain assault weapons, large capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and incendiary .50 caliber bullets.”
The bill goes on to punishments which include control of “the possession, sale, transport, distribution, or use of certain assault weapons, large capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and incendiary .50 caliber bullets.”
Most alarming, however, is the stipulation to require seizure of the weaponry and ammunition by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation by designating both as “contraband.”
Representative Mary Margaret Oliver announced on her webpage:
[Oliver] and fifteen Democrat women House members introduced HB 731 on the first day of the 2016 Session. The bill bans assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Georgia needs debate about these weapons which are only used for rapidly killing people. Assault weapons are not necessary for deer hunting.
Georgia’s premier Second Amendment group, Georgia Carry, tweeted, “Dems finally honest about gun control, their ultimate goal is confiscation.” Other pro-gun activists say .50 caliber weapons and assault weapons are not the problem, and even most mass shootings do not occur with so-called “assault weapons.”
About Author
Jessica Szilagyi
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It is not about legal gun control, it is the DeKalb looter protection bill.
Its a bad bill that’s similar to NY and Connecticut law. Particularly troubling is the ban on magazines with greater than ten round capacity. We already ban some weapons under Ga. Code 16-11-123 but Oliver’s bill is unnecessary and won’t go anywhere in the legislature.
This bill, like so many others from both parties, before and after it, is like a child banging on a bunch of pots and pans. They do it because they like the noise it makes.
I agree it won’t go anywhere, but really- what is the argument against it? So far laws like this appear to be constitutional.
Even the part about confiscation of personal, private property?
You got it, boat man! And MMO held a press conference on this today? Sounds like they’re feeling the Bern, plus took a stupid pill this morning.
Has confiscation of 30 round magazines and AR-15s/M-4s been really tested on a federal level? I know they recently passed these laws in some NE states, but how far have any court cases gone?
I would say the confiscation part is not good. It doesn’t look like they are planning for people to be compensated.
How about just registering those weapons and parts, but no sales or transfers?
The weapons are registered. If I remember back to my gun shop days, the FFL holder has to keep the 4473 forms (the form you have to fill out when you purchase a fire arm) for 20 years and must be ready to present them to law enforcement upon request. They also have to keep a ‘bound book’ (can be digital) that details all firearms received and sold with details about when and to whom they were purchased/sold. If the weapons are registered, then why the double step of serializing and registering the magazines?
As for the no sales or transfers unless you are licensed to do so, what is the government interest there that would preclude me from selling a weapon?
What is the point of having a registry unless the ultimate goal is for the government to know who has what and where so that the government can come and confiscate the weapon or magazines.
Also, what about the AR-15 I had someone build in their garage for me? How are you going to track that? Or the 30 round magazines I bought with cash? Are you going to put pistol grips, barrels, receivers, actions and retractable stocks, night vision scopes on a registry? These are all things I can buy online and use to build a AR in my garage. What makes an assault rifle? By the way AR does not stand for assault rifle. It stands for Armalite Rifle. The company that first built the scary looking gun that liberals want to ban.
Andrew is correct in his assessment of the bill. It’s at most a talking point for liberals and turns people like me off. I refuse to support any bill that has the word registry in it, but I am more than willing to have a discussion about background checks and other reasonable discussions.
Another question. Will banning what you call assault rifles and confiscating them from people who have them bring down the murder rate in Chicago? The answer is no.
I agree with your overall point, but the lower receiver in your example, if purchased/manufactured legally is on the ‘the registry’ effectively.
I know people that make them. Not in their garage, but they make the receivers and then purchase everything else to build a rifle. These are the people that also have bugout bags and two years of freeze dried food buried in 5 gallon buckets in their yard. They aren’t bad people they are just a little paranoid.
I don’t necessarily disagree with anything that you state in your second paragraph. The mental illness issue is one that needs to be addressed, but not from the firearm angle. It’s too hard to commit people with mental disorders to an institution where they can receive the help and meds they need.
Her definition of “semi automatic firearm” is quite broad and would include many firearms and magazines currently legally possessed by Georgians. For those that scream about “gun grabbing”, this bill plays to that old argument. Just because something may be constitutional doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good legislation.
Mr. Pope
Look at 16-11-116 and 117. She addresses previously owned weapons with “modify” or “surrender” requirements.
This won’t and shouldn’t go anywhere. If the gun is purchased legally, I have no opposition to any law abiding citizen owning an assault weapon. This is just an election year bill to please members of the Democratic party.
Can we please quit calling an automatic rifle an assault weapon? Please. It is only an “assault weapon” if used in and assault. Much like a knife, bat, or handgun would be called an assault weapon if used during an assault. The term assault weapon was placed on automatic rifles by liberals to make them sounds bad so that people who are unfamiliar with firearms say, “of course people should have assault weapons. Assault is bad.”
It’s political theater. Words are very much chosen to sway public opinion. Heck look at how pro-CHOICE proponents are instead called pro-abortion by the pro-life side.
“assault” is a term used by those that equate a particular weapon with military use and thus the weapon should not be used by civilians . Not saying I agree, but that’s the idea.
Full-auto is an assault weapon with no intention other than killing people. These are obviously restricted, but in my opinion not to the degree they should be.
Semi-auto is a whole nother thing and encompasses the vast majority of all firearms sold today. There are some reasonable restrictions that should be considered to them but if the argument starts in the realm of the theater of the absurd then it isn’t worth the oxygen, or electrons.